December 04, 2008

Tin Foil Time

Questions about Barack Obama's citizenship just don't seem to die in certain corners of the internet. Was he actually born in the US? If so, did he renounce his citizenship while living in Indonesia? What does it mean to be a "natural born" citizen? Do his sealed Columbia school records show he was enrolled as a foreign student? I've always assumed that this issue is the equivalent trufer-ism for conservatives.

Yet two things have bothered me. First, the copy of Obama's birth certificate that circulated the web and was used on one of his campaign's websites, was first released to Daily Kos (of all places) and is felt by many to be a forgery. Second, this matter could so very easily be solved if he simply produced an original document.

Anyway, however bizarre these questions may be, they have now been given some degree of legitimacy since the Supreme Court has agreed to discuss one of the several citizenship cases in conference tomorrow:

The U.S. Supreme Court will consider Friday whether to take up a lawsuit challenging President-elect Barack Obama's U.S. citizenship, a continuation of a New Jersey case embraced by some opponents of Obama's election.

The meeting of justices will coincide with a vigil by the filer's supporters in Washington on the steps of the nation's highest court.

It's unlikely that the court will agree to grant certiorari in this case, but if they do, and we enter a constitutional crisis, you heard it here first.

6 Comments

Honestly, I wouldn't want to see Obama "dethroned" for something like that. While I take the citizenship requirements seriously, i don't believe there was anything other than a "good faith" belief on the part of all legitimate contenders that they were US citizens.

My opinion would change if it could be irrefutably demonstrated that Obama knew he was ineligible and proceeded to cover it up in order to secure his election. But I don't think that's the case.

The other interesting constitutional issue, one that will not be resolved by providing a piece of paper, is whether Hillary Clinton can serve as Secretary of State. The Constitution is clear on this issue (she cannot). Or is it? Volokh has a good summary of the arguments back and forth here and here.

"My opinion would change if it could be irrefutably demonstrated that Obama knew he was ineligible and proceeded to cover it up .."

Well that's what a lot of these folks are arguing---that he IS actively hiding something. He puts a certificate up on one of his campaign's websites, then takes it down when questions of its authenticity arise. He spend hundreds of thousands fighting multiple lawsuits on this issue (one has made it to the SCOTUS). He visits his mom, and while there, gets his "Certificate Of Live Birth" (different from a birth certificate) locked up. He seals his Columbia records. Etc, etc...

Why not just produce the thing? Could there be something else on it? Religion? Father?

My favorite part of the Emoluments Clause thing is this quote from Hillary's spokesman: "This is a Harvard Law grad nominating a Yale Law grad here, so all parties involved have been cognizant of this issue from the outset".

Remember: just because they claim to not be elitists doesn't mean they're not still way smarter than you. So you shut your damn fool mouth and don't ask questions when your betters are talking.